State v. Finonen
Case # A151989
Full Text of Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A151989.pdf
Defendant Finonen and his roommate “A” got into a drunken, physical altercation that ended with A lying on the ground bleeding from a stab wound. Finonen was arrested and told the arresting Officer “I fucked up,” and then, “Fucking pissed me off.” At the police station, two different officers, Detectives Dran and Sharp, interviewed Finonen. At the outset, Dran read Finonen his Miranda rights. When asked if he understood his rights, Finonen responded, ““Yes, no, maybe so” and “Yes, no, everything, yes, no, everything, yes, no, everything.” Finonen was an immigrant from Micronesia, and English was not his first language. Nevertheless, Dran told Finonen that he was “not in the mood to play silly, stupid games” and attempted to explain the seriousness of the situation and again read the Miranda warnings. Before he finished, Finonen who thought that Dran was the officer who had arrested him and to whom he had made several statements, interjected and said that everything that he had said earlier was true. Dran asked Finonen about the incident with A, and at some point during the interview Finonen demonstrated how he had hit A. Finonen was charged with of First-Degree Assault and Second-Degree Assault.
At trial, Finonen testified that A came after him with a cleaver and a baseball bat. He testified that he picked up the cleaver after A threw it at him, and he must have accidentally cut A with it when he and A collided. Finonen demonstrated how he had hit A. Finonen also said that when he told the arresting officer that A had “pissed [him] off, he meant “he wanted to beat me up.” On cross-examination, the State used evidence from Finonen’s interview Dran to impeach Finonen. For example, the State pointed out that the punch Finonen demonstrated to Dran was different from the one he demonstrated to the jury. Finonen was ultimately convicted of both assault counts, and he now appeals. He argues that he did not validly waive his right against self-incrimination under Article I, section 12 and that State must therefore be precluded from using illegally obtained statements for any purpose, including impeachment.
The Court of Appeals agrees with Finonen. It notes that the State does not contest either that Dran failed to ensure that Finonen understood his Miranda rights or that Dran’s failure to effectively explain those rights to Finonen is tantamount to having failed to give Miranda warnings at all. It therefore follows that Dran conducted the custodial interrogation of Finonen in violation of Article I, section 12, and that the trial court erred in concluding that Finonen’s statements were admissible for impeachment purposes. Moreover, the trial court’s error was not harmless because it is likely the evidence affected the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, the convictions are reversed and remanded.